The football players falling on their knees on the field seem to think he's a micro-manager; the child-abusing priests seem to think he's paying no attention. Christians are not terribly clear on what they believe.
I wouldn’t consider child abusers to be following Jesus. People may label themselves all kinds of things, but that doesn’t mean they practice it. I have no idea what football players “falling to their knees” believe, and if we’re honest, neither do you. But, for those who have been outspoken about their faith, they see Him as a positive force in their lives - making them better people. It might be helpful to ask believers what they believe before assuming we know. Deism tends to suggest a Deity that is like an “absentee landlord,” and an impersonal God. But that’s not the underlying premise of Christianity, Judaism or Islam. That said, once the NT comes into play, these three faiths go their separate ways. Faith is often times a personal experience (unless one has been indoctrinated.) I think many in the West judge different religions based on the actions of some of the worst, within that religion. If you want to know what a particular faith actually teaches, read their texts in their entirety, then at least you’ll have an accurate idea. Personally, I don't believe that anyone can ''talk someone into'' believing in God. The reasons why people have ''conversion experiences'' in their adult years (on their own) differ from person to person. To look at a child abusing priest and actually believe that all Catholics for example, are okay with that, would be absurd. To look at Christians who stand outside of Planned Parenthood, shouting to those walking in that they're ''going to hell,'' is also not indicative of Jesus' teachings. It's unfortunate, but the ''Christian'' sector within the US is splintered, and maybe this is why Jesus said ''the gate is narrow.'' (Matthew 7:14 - But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.) Only a few find it, which tells me just reading that statement objectively that Jesus doesn't approve of all the in-fighting, and wrong teachings/behaviors of those who claim to believe in God. Many may say they're Christian, but they don't even know what the New Testament teaches. So, how does one claim to be a follower of any religion at all (not just Christianity) if he/she doesn't know what it actually teaches? There's a lot of that in the West. Just my $.02
Nor do gun-toting, Trump-absolving Republicans, but they think they are Christians. We don't know what any of them practice in private. Or what they believe. All we have to go by is their self-designation and their public actions. And in that, they are not very clear, or coherent as a group. And that is why I said "seem to". Pence & Romney. Not interchangeable. Helpful to whom? In what endeavour? I don't assume I know or care what people think; I judge their words and actions. And I think good people behave well and bad people behave badly, regardless of how they label themselves, how others label them or to what source they attribute their virtues and vices. Culture. It's what they're told from infancy, so they wear the label the same way they wear the name on their birth certificate: it's just part of their social identity. That would describe the vast majority of people, everywhere, who belong to any religion. Atheists have to have given it some thought, because they are generally going against the mainstream of their culture; for Jews, it's often a matter of national loyalty rather than faith; for many Muslims, it's political. But Christian majorities really don't have many challenges to their self-designation, so they don't have to think about it. I've known a few who were mindful, deliberate, active Christians and they do not fit any more comfortably into the societal norms of nominally Christian countries than do atheists or Druids.
And, that's unfortunate. People usually don't walk around in everyday life, in groups. If you were to take a survey of say 100 Christians, and started asking them (individually) what they actually believe and why, you might be able to draw a better conclusion. Helpful to anyone wishing to have a discussion about what others believe and don't believe, instead of generalizing and showing bias against an entire group. I agree, but it shouldn't bother anyone if a believer leads a good life of service to others, etc...and attributes their good intentions to God. I have issues when people become zealots who wish to push their beliefs onto others, or hurt others because they've convinced themselves this is ''God's plan.'' One of my aunts often says ''God's not crazy, but people are.'' lol But, when we look at Christians behaving badly, we assume God is the problem. Or belief in God, is the problem. Maybe some people are the problem, and they'd still behave badly, even if they were atheists. Somewhat agree. Hmm, I don't know about that. I think that Christians face more prejudice in the US, than any other religious group. (by atheists) Sorry, I'm not following you, here.
Aw, the poor powerful majority is suffering prejudice from a handful of powerless misfits! Be that as it may, the majority never have to think about why they're the majority. They don't need a reason or justification to stay where they've always belonged. An individual who departs from the majority needs a reason to take that step - to take a chance on pissing off their relatives and being despised by their neighbours. They live in families, communities and nations; they vote for a shared representative; they go to church together. They're a group, not because of their walking around habits but by self-designation. Christians are a religious group. Muslims are a religious group. Rastafarians are a religious group. Methodists are a religious group. Any number of people from a minyan to all the 500+ million Buddhists can be referred-to as a group. I don't think so. My sample size was much bigger. Evidently. I'm saying that anyone who hasn't bothered to question the religion they were born into will automatically claim to believe the tenets of that religion, even if they are ignorant of, or don't take seriously, its teachings. People who have given serious consideration to what Jesus wants from them and made a commitment to do that, do often find himself opposing the majority of Christians-in-name-only, and that can be very costly. Think early abolitionists, just as an example. Or conscientious objectors, or the Dutch family who hid Ann Frank in their attic. Which "we" are you speaking for? The character of gods is spelled out in their scriptures. The laws they carve in stone and the punishments they mete out are recorded in the holy texts that their followers are supposed to believe, that they claim to be guided by. The character of Jehovah is described in the book all Christians profess to revere. I do not find that character attractive; it's not a god I could worship. But I don't think he's "the problem" in Christians, Jews and Muslims behaving badly. People create gods who reflect themselves and tell them to do what they want to do. Jehovah is a projection of Abraham that just kept on growing as he collected more adherents. Good Christians ignore him and listen to Jesus, because he makes a better god for them: he reflects their character and tells them to do what they want to do. Bad Christians justify their bad actions by ignoring Jesus and going back to the OT.
Since the point of this is ultimately to draw a comparison to God, it has to be analogous. The boy knows a lot about his parents. His family, caregivers and history is built upon teaching him about his parent. While they may not be physically present, he is surrounded by a preponderance of knowledge from the rest of his family caregivers and community about them. And they walk through all of it with his family and friends, at least once a week, throughout his development. Why would he do that? See above points. His whole community revels in his parents. It's not book; it's a culture. It is his world. He is as likely to question the wisdom in his world as we atheists are to question the scientific method. We grew up with it; it's in our blood as having been corroborated innumerable times. And, yes, we do question it. There are things we can't touch - such as black holes and galaxies and the Big Bang - but we're comfortable with our gathered knowledge of them. And we come back to the same conclusion: "Yup. It's logical and bears out in the real world." His conclusion is the same. etc. etc. This is why I'm saying this is a terrible analogy. Yes. If any kid were stranded in the jungle with nothing but a single book and no one to guide him, he would certainly wonder. And that's the kind of straw man atheists love. "Here's a book. Read it. Learn it. Believe it. See you when you're eighteen." We can do better than to build our own faulty model and then attack it. We're above strawman arguments.
I doubt it. He would treasure the book as a relic of his lost parents, read over and over, not for guidance (because there's nothing in there about poisonous mushrooms or boa constrictors) but to try to recapture a happier time. For all matters practical, he'd look to the apes. At least until he met Jane.
Forgive me of my tresspasses as I forgive those who trespass against me. Maybe God will let his angels write a new bible for modern man with modern values. It seems that God has transgressed over hatred. Adam eats that apple and that single sin leads up to the biblical atrocities.
It wasn't the eating so much as the passing of blame, through Eve back on to God. Genesis 3:12 “And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.”
It's not up to me to forgive either Adam or God, as they have not trespassed against me. It's not up to Jesus to intercede for either of them, as he wasn't conceived for another 800-1000 years. He had to wait out Daddy's temper tantrums: the flood, the destruction Sodom and Gomorrah, that showdown in Cairo, the massacre of Jericho and another one at Masada.
The 600+ is possibly in reference to the 613 Commandments in the Old Testament. See : http://gods-word-first.org/bible-study/613commandments.html edit : saw davewhite04's Post after Replying...so disregard "possibly".
No. You asked How can God transgress? Trans(across)gression(stepping) require a line to step over. In order for anyone to step over it, there must first be a line. So I'm asking: what limits does God have on His behaviour?
